Penalty for concealment requires proof of deliberate false particulars; an unexplained income addition alone is not enough.

Penalty for concealment under income-tax law requires the revenue to prove deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or conscious concealment of income. A mere addition to income, including an unexplained discrepancy between bank figures and books, is insufficient by itself to justify penalty. On the facts, the assessee's explanation for the mismatch was not shown to be false with firm material, so the penalty was not sustainable and was rightly set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under the income-tax law was sustainable on the ground that the assessee had deliberately furnished wrong particulars in relation to the discrepancy between the bank figures and the books of account.

Analysis: The assessee's explanation for the discrepancy was that the accounts and borrowings had been managed by another person and that the relevant records could not be reconciled after the relationship soured. The discrepancy had been assessed as income from undisclosed sources, but the imposition of penalty required more than the mere existence of an addition to income. In the absence of material leading to a firm conclusion that the assessee had consciously furnished false particulars or deliberately concealed income, the penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The penalty was not justified and was rightly set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for concealment cannot be imposed unless the revenue establishes deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or conscious concealment; a mere unexplained income addition is insufficient.

---